Debates of Feb. 10th, 1994

Supply

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question. First of all I cannot comment on the motivations for the Bloc Quebecois to bring this motion forward. I really do not know what the intent was. All I can say is that was my reaction in reviewing it and that is what prompted my engagement in the debate today.

As far as the difference between duplication and overlap, they both cost taxpayers money. We are concerned about getting at the issue of the economics of it as opposed to defining what the difference is between duplication and overlap. They both are inefficient and they both cost taxpayers money. That is the angle we want to attack it from. There does need to be discussions among various levels of government concerning duplication and overlap and there clearly is a good case for that.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain something to the hon. member from the Reform Party. Our party is asking for a special committee to examine public expenditures while the minister is worried about duplication since there already is a public accounts committee. I understand his question, but the committee on public accounts is responsible for assessing the legality of public expenditures. Did the government respect this or that enabling act in incurring expenditures? A committee or commission, whatever we want to call it, as proposed by my party, would look at the morality of certain public expenditures.

Some embassies have paid $490 for waste containers; it is certainly not illegal to buy waste containers but the $490 price tag is questionable. That is why we want to strike this committee, to get the Canadian budget in better shape.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his statement and his question.

Certainly the issue of government spending in total is very important to the Reform Party and we intend to examine all government spending. We have been doing that and we advocate that in the future to see how we can reduce spending and create efficiency.

When the member talks about an embassy buying a trash can for $490 he is right on the mark. However, I do not see what that has to do with duplication and overlap of government services. Quite honestly that is a separate issue. It is one that is very important to us as well and we intend to pursue it.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois dealing with the same subject the Reform Party of Canada has been talking about for some time now.

I am happy to see that the Bloc is in accord with us in suggesting we take a closer look at government expenditures. I think we laud their motive, if not their specifics in proposing this all-party special committee to examine government finances.

The nation knows how concerned the Reform Party is about government spending in general. In saying a few words to the House today I want to touch upon one of the most important aspects of the control of government spending. I am sure most of the members here today are frugal people who want to save all they can for the taxpayer and would gladly make sacrifices to make sure that it is done.

There is a story told that President Lyndon Johnson used to walk around the White House turning off the lights at night in an effort to save a few dollars for the treasury. It is almost comical when we think of the size of the U.S. government and such a small measure he was taking. The President experienced frustration because he had little direct control over government expenditures.

In exactly the same way the expenditures which are directly controlled by any individual member here in the House are very small indeed in comparison with the vast amount of money expended daily by the federal government.

Who then actually spends this money? I want to speak today about the role of the civil service in government spending. The civil servant is the gatekeeper of the federal treasury. The money government spends is disbursed by civil servants who make hundreds of thousands of decisions every day about the smallest details of government spending. Whether it is a public servant deciding upon a loan to the private business sector or a UI agent deciding a question of entitlement, the billions that pour forth from our taxpayers must all pour through this plethora of civil servants.

Although a great percentage of government payments are statutory obligations, even these obligatory payments involve an element of discretion over which the public service exercises a large amount of control. I just cited the example of the UI

agent who must pay what the client is entitled to, yet that agent also has some latitude to decide exactly what amount of entitlement will be offered.

I want to make a very important statement. If the public service does not change its discretionary behaviour members of Parliament will be almost powerless to effect real substantial change in government spending. It will be as frustrating as trying to trim our budget by walking around the House of Commons turning out the lights.

How can the House of Commons affect this discretionary behaviour of the civil servant? There is a way. The Auditor General did touch on it in his report and I want to expand on it for a moment today.

Public Service 2000 was an initiative begun by the former government in 1989. Its goals were noble: to streamline the public service; to make it more service oriented and responsive to the needs of the public; to combine certain functions of departments to improve efficiency; and to foster a better attitude among civil servants.

Five years later what do we find? We do not really know for sure. Annual progress reports were supposed to be submitted to the Prime Minister, but that has just not happened. In fact there has been only one report submitted since 1989 and this shows two really big problems. One is a lack of political will to force these reports and a lack of motivation on the part of the civil service to submit them. Perhaps we are not surprised at the lack of political will, especially in times past, but it is unfortunate that we cannot expect the civil servants to submit these reports as the government initially required.

When I look at the origins of the PS 2000 initiative I am not at all surprised to see reform proceeding at a snail's pace. Ten task forces made up of high ranking civil servants together plotted the major objectives of the PS 2000 program and presented the plan to the politicians of the day.

I am not in any way attempting to cast any kind of bad light upon our good civil servants. They are dedicated, well qualified and well intentioned. However one can hardly expect those who have spent their entire careers in the service to effect serious change that would cause real disruptions to that service. Each civil servant on those committees had an unconscious vested interest in maintaining the status quo even though everyone agreed we urgently needed change. What is missing from the Public Service 2000 is a check and balance mechanism that would guarantee results.

What concrete results have we achieved to date? Not having many of the required reports in place we are not really sure but the Auditor General does give us some ideas. Mostly the Auditor General talks about an improved attitude in the public service. Good feelings are all very nice but when we look at the cruel hard numbers what do we see?

According to Statistics Canada we see that we still employ a total of 413,000 civil servants. We paid $19 billion last year in wages and salaries, up from $17 billion in 1992. When we come to the line that affects every taxpayer in the country daily, the bottom line is that PS 2000 has had virtually no effect on the civil service.

According to the Auditor General, many top level bureaucrats are disillusioned with PS 2000. I will quote a few excerpts from his report:

Some of the executives we met wonder whether PS 2000 was dead, and we detected an atmosphere of scepticism and cynicism surrounding the renewal initiative-Several witnesses emphasized that the changes-would be difficult and time-consuming to implement-Inconsistency is perceived between some of the principles of PS 2000 and other initiatives, including downsizing and operating budget cuts.

This is exactly what the system needs. Why then has PS 2000 been ineffective? It is because the organizational structure in charge of it, the civil service, automatically protects its own position. It is called the survival instinct. I guess we are all guilty of it. There is nothing wrong with it, but in this case the instinct does not serve the public interest.

As leaders in the House of Commons we are charged with the responsibility of leading the civil service, not the other way around. The civil service is not a democratic institution. It is a group of people hired by us to do the work we have mandated it to do. The civil service has no implicit desire to change itself. That mandate for change is the awesome responsibility of every member of Parliament today. Members in past Houses have abdicated that responsibility for over a decade now. That is why we are suffering some of these problems today.

It is time for the House of Commons to take charge of spending in this country. It is time for elected members to begin to control the public service. Let me list a few broad general principles that will guide this. I take my lead from the positive changes which have been made in other Commonwealth countries, especially in New Zealand.

First, the mandate for change in the service must emanate from this House of Commons. The idea of the civil service reforming itself will never work and I do not think we should be under any illusion that it will.

Second, civil servants must have incentives to make the necessary changes. Put deputy ministers and other senior executives on contract like they did in New Zealand. Give them authority to make changes and things will happen because the incentive will be there.

Third, we need to require concrete results. If departments do not achieve measurable performance objectives laid out by the House of Commons, contracts should not be renewed. If incen-

tives do not hasten change then something even tougher may have to be required.

Something needs to be done. We appreciate the general direction of the Bloc Quebecois, but that direction needs to become even more specific. If we give the direction to the public accounts committee as was mentioned earlier, it is within its means to check on this and to make sure it comes to fruition. I honestly believe that civil servants acting frugally can effect many of the changes all of us in this House are looking forward to.

I urge all members of the House to set aside their party politics when it comes to this sort of thing and ensure that changes to the civil service come mandated from the House and not the other way around.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of what the hon. member for Fraser Valley East said.

I think he is quite right that we in this country and this Parliament lack political will. I also think that he is right when he says that public servants may not be sensitive enough to the need for a new attitude to public spending.

I will give an example to illustrate what I am saying. Recently, in answer to a question raised in this House, the Minister of Transport said that his department was re-evaluating air traffic control. In my riding, they are preparing to close a radar control room that employs some fifteen people. When these employees are moved to the regional centre, they will each be entitled to a $10,000 increase simply because their employment classification changes.

Second, the department recognizes that this move will cost between $4 and $5 million. This is all being done in a time of extreme economic hardship. We make speeches, but when the time comes to act, it is as if we could not apply the brakes. If the existing mechanisms like the Public Accounts Committee were considered to be effective, the Bloc would be satisfied. But be assured that the Bloc does not want to get into constitutional discussions; that is not its purpose at all, but rather to try to find a new way, because all the others have proven to be ineffective.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good we have a few points we agree on. I appreciate that.

Since the public accounts committee is generally chaired by a member of the opposition party and especially since it holds that chair it can set the direction and the tone of the public accounts committee. The direction and the agenda given to that committee could well effect the changes I was looking for, changes that have measurable results that are reportable to the House. I believe that is the way to do it.

Since the Bloc Quebecois holds that chair it has a perfect opportunity to make sure that is made as public as possible. Changes could be initiated if it takes that and demands results, demands accountability and demands measurable performance. I think it could be done through the public accounts committee.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the member for Fraser Valley East I say I do not disagree with a lot of things that were said. However I do have some areas I would like clarified. The member talked about improved attitude and changes of direction.

When we investigate why the attitudes are not good, if we take that premise, it is fair enough to say that sometimes our public servants have portrayed that attitude. There has been a past history from the House that has really fostered that and I get fairly concerned when the member talks about contracts not being renewed. I would hope that would not be the sledge hammer he would be attempting to use in this new government. That is really a wrong direction. It goes back to when the Conservatives talked about issuing all of our public servants running shoes if they did not like the way things were done. That is really wrong.

It is very important that we in some way start to change direction, change attitudes, talk about a monitoring program. That would be a good thing; also putting a strong strategic plan in place. I believe that we are part of that process.

I wonder if I could have a bit of clarification on the contract renewal.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was fairly specific. I am talking now about the deputy minister level. By and large our civil servants are good, dedicated people even at the deputy minister level.

The problem is that the people at the low end of the scale who deliver the services are generally the whipping boys for lack of action at the top, and I include the House of Commons in that.

Where I would like to see this contract idea is at the deputy minister level at which it is said: "You in essence are the CEO of this department and we need to see some measurable results and if you cannot deliver them to us then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution".

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener.

I rise to speak on the motion put before the House today by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, a motion that seeks to create a special committee of the House to examine the expenditures of the government, to consult extensively and openly with the people of Canada and to recommend decisive

action to reduce the cost of overlap between federal and provincial programs.

Through this motion the hon. member has touched upon issues which this government supports.

They are: first, ensuring that this House has the means and opportunity to examine and debate those matters that are a priority to all Canadians; second, that government be open and accessible to everyone; third, that government spend as efficiently and effectively as possible in the service of the nation's interests.

These issues are not in contention. However, the disagreement and contention with this motion lies with the creation of a new committee of the House to duplicate the role of the public accounts committee at an added cost to taxpayers.

To support my opposition to this motion my remarks today will focus on the nature of the government's expenditures, what we spend now and the vital importance of spending this money more effectively to ensure a more stable and brighter economic future.

The government stated in the speech from the throne that it will pursue the fiscal discipline necessary for sustained economic growth. As well, the government attaches the highest priority on job creation and economic growth in the short term and the long term. These two objectives work hand in hand. Growth and jobs will enhance government revenues and reduce spending on unemployment insurance and welfare. Fiscal discipline to contain the deficit will create confidence and growth.

At the same time, it is known that a number of government programs and tax expenditures, some of which have been identified by the Auditor General, are inefficient, poorly managed or driven for purely political reasons.

Just as we as a government are proposing new measures to grow the economy, programs will be examined extensively with the objective of reducing waste and inefficiency and promoting economic growth.

So far the government has acted decisively on both fronts. The $5.8 billion helicopter program was an initiative that was too expensive given the government's fiscal situation and was cancelled.

To stimulate the economic activity and create jobs, an agreement has been reached with provincial and territorial governments for a $6 billion joint federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. These are important steps that send a real message to members of this House that this government means to keep its commitments to Canadians.

Most of us have wondered from time to time where all the money goes that government spends. It should be known that the Government of Canada's budgetary expenditures from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 were $161.9 billion. Of this, $41.9 billion, 26 per cent, was spent on direct income support payments for individual Canadians. Almost half, $19.1 billion, went to supporting our elderly, and $19 billion of the remainder went to support the unemployed through the unemployment insurance program.

Public debt charges totalled $39.4 billion. Transfers to other levels of government through such programs as equalization, the Canada Assistance Plan and established programs financing amounted to $28.8 billion.

Defence spending was $11 billion. The operations of government providing services such as law enforcement, air traffic control, weather forecasting and health services to Indian and Inuit peoples cost $19.8 billion.

Crown corporations required expenditures of $6.2 billion. Direct federal government support for international aid was $2.8 billion.

For those members not keeping track of these numbers on their pocket calculators, it should be noted that the total of all these expenditures subtracted from the total budget leaves a remainder of $12 billion. This spending supports programs for industrial and regional development, job creation and training, support for our farmers and fishermen, science and technology and assistance to our students.

This 7 per cent of federal government spending should be viewed as Canada's investment fund. Used wisely it can stimulate growth, create jobs, develop knowledge and new technologies, and invest in the enterprising potential of our country and its people.

Most important, effective and efficient programs can help prepare Canadians for the economic environment of the future.

During this time of economic globalization, the days when Canada's wealth was measured only by its natural resources, capital and a protected domestic market are now gone.

Globalization is the growing trend in the international economy. It is a reality. Globalization refers to the ability to make the components of products wherever in the world their production is cheapest and transport them efficiently.

It means that with cheaper transportation and computer based information and communications, the world is becoming smaller and competition is fiercer than ever before.

High productivity will be the only route to high incomes in such an economy. Canadians must prepare to be successful in the modern economy in which success will be determined by the knowledge, education and skills of our Canadian people.

Governments have a responsibility to help in the transition to the new economy or to be left to cope with intractable unemployment and the needs of citizens with declining incomes.

As outlined in the speech from the throne, this government intends to pursue an active program for the growing economy, focusing on small and medium sized businesses as the engine for longer term job creation.

The government will work with financial institutions to improve access to capital for small business. A Canada investment fund will be created to help innovative leading edge technology firms to obtain the long term capital they need. A Canadian technology network will be created to improve the diffusion of technology and innovation.

The government will encourage technology partnerships between Canadian universities, research institutions and the private sector. The government will also implement a Canadian strategy for an information highway. The government will promote better training for the managers of small businesses and greater access to strategic information on new marketing opportunities. The government will work with the provinces to reduce the regulatory and paper burden on small businesses and to streamline the delivery of these programs.

Competing successfully in the emerging global economy will also require an investment in our own people. The government will work in partnership with the provinces and the private sector to help young people better prepare for the transition from school to the work place.

It will propose measures to improve job training as well as the literacy skills of Canadians with funding for the national literacy program restored to its original level.

I acknowledge that many of the initiatives aforementioned will require the government to act in partnership with provinces to be fully successful. This can be an advantage for these initiatives rather than a hindrance.

The government has shown through the infrastructure program that governments acting together can make advances that would be beyond the capacity of any one level of government working alone.

The challenges facing us as we adapt to economic globalization will require co-operation among governments in designing and delivering programs. Our task is to ensure that they are the right programs, effective and efficient, and that the government's spending is effective and efficient. Anything less jeopardizes our future as Canadians and our future as a country.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing today reflects the fact that many Canadians are concerned that governments are inefficient, unresponsive and too costly.

It is not simply Canadians who are concerned. Australians, Britons, Americans and Germans are now looking at government and those same kinds of complaints.

This government has decided in light of these concerns that the time has come for decisive action. In the speech from the throne it was said it will be the policy of the government to seek to clarify the federal government's responsibilities in relation to other orders of government, to eliminate overlap and duplication and to find better ways to provide services so that they represent the best value for taxpayers' dollars and respond to the real needs of people.

At the first minister's meeting on December 21, 1993 the first ministers agreed to give priority to efforts to improve the efficiency of the federation. In this regard, in responding to comments made earlier by the member for Fraser Valley East, PS 2000 to which he referred has in fact one progress report and another progress report is being prepared. The responsibility for renewal of the public service, as he indicated, is the responsibility of the government and of course the members of the House. I welcome his remark that he does believe that civil servants acting effectively can carry out the mandate under PS 2000 with the direction of course being given by the government.

The shared commitment to change which emerged from the first ministers meeting is evidence of a flexible adaptable federal system, one that is based on sound principles and offers both long-term stability and the capacity to evolve. That evolution can come through reasoned discussion as needs and priorities change.

To meet these ends the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has written to the premiers and to territorial government leaders to launch the process of eliminating overlap and duplication as is suggested in the motion today. The overlap, duplication and delivery of federal and provincial government programs and services is of major importance to this government.

The process being undertaken aims to, first, clarify federal-provincial roles and responsibilities to ensure that limited public resources are used to provide necessary services in an efficient way; second, to ensure public service activities facilitate economic investment and growth; and, third, to redesign programs and services to achieve more efficient delivery and greater client orientation. This morning the member for Ottawa West talked in a very fascinating way about changes that are coming in the area of telecommunications that offers such prospects as 24-hour service.

In implementing this process the government will, one, establish constructive partnerships with provincial governments; two, use federal-provincial administrative agreements to provide Canadians with efficient responsive programs and services; and, three, utilize both bilateral and multilateral negotiations to obtain timely results and ensure maximum flexibility. Those negotiations are going on constantly. Finally, we work to ensure that the negotiation process is transparent to all participants; that is, based on equality of treatment and sound public policy objectives.

The government then is entering this process with an open mind and is prepared to be flexible in accommodating provincial needs and priorities.

We recognize that in many areas provinces have developed the best practices and that the federal government has much to learn from them and we are following in our negotiations with the provinces a path where we are looking at their programs to consider which are most effective in that regard.

Therefore we are prepared to consider, one, what level of government is best suited to delivering a certain service or program. As I said before, we are open-minded in this regard. We are furthermore considering how to make policies and programs more effective and affordable and more accessible to clients. As the minister said earlier today, the goal is service enhancement above all else.

In terms of the flexibility about which I spoke earlier we want to be flexible in developing common objectives and in choosing issues for negotiations. These will be done item by item, province by province, department by department. We will conduct negotiations bilaterally if necessary and multilaterally if it is possible, again depending upon particular needs.

We will where possible use pilot projects such as the New Brunswick works project which was referred to earlier by the member for Peterborough. That project offers real hope we believe in the area of employment training and social services reform.

All of these initiatives we believe demonstrate important features of our federation, ones that are the envy of many other nations. It is especially gratifying in an age where disputes between governments are an every day occurrence that our leaders, provincial and federal, have agreed to set aside differences and search together for solutions that are in the best interest of the public.

In that regard, Mr. Bruce Doern, a student of governmental reform in England, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Canada, has written about the experience over the last two decades and I would like to bring attention to his comments:

What the full experience of the last two decades perhaps shows most of all is the need to reduce ideological blinkers and be much more selective about which functional and organizational aspects of government are efficiency and democracy enhancing-and which are reducing.

A thinking view of the State is far more important to Canadians than an ideological one that simply bashes bureaucracy and government or attacks market-based approaches as a form of ritual sport.

It is not a time for ritual sports of that type, it is a time to work together in service enhancement and making government work.

In terms of the PS 2000 report, a progress report as I have said is being produced. We are comparing what is being done here as the Auditor General did in his report. We find that in many ways we have not kept up. It is true the previous government did not. However in comparing our progress with that of the United States, in fact in the terms of the re-invent government agenda of Vice President Gore, one finds in that agenda that we have done many of the things he is calling for in the United States.

The federal government views the reduction of overlap and duplication as called for in this motion as a win-win situation for governments and for taxpayers. It will render programs more affordable and thus sustainable over time while providing Canadians with the best service possible within the limits of available resources.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments, especially when the member was specific about relating some of the things I was concerned about in my presentation.

I wonder if the member has any more details as to when the PS 2000 report will be tabled in the House.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one progress report already which the member has probably seen. It was given to some members of your party a couple of days ago. Two members of your party asked for that report.

The second report is being prepared now. It has been slowed down by the election and the events in between. It is in almost final draft form, but I can check that. It is one that compares what we are doing with what is being done in other countries. I refer the member of course to the Auditor General's comments which make those comparisons as well.

In terms of the whole business of renewing the public service and looking at these questions, it is being given active consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I might make the point here that we all make this mistake, and I do too, of not addressing remarks through the Chair. I think the parliamentary secretary used the expression your or you twice in two sentences. Once per paragraph at least, please.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every year, the report of the Auditor General of Canada is tabled in the House of Commons. The report is in the news for the first few weeks, but then interest wanes, so that for all practical purposes, the Auditor General's report sits gathering dust on the shelves in government departments.

However, I see many items in this report that could be followed up and would help the government improve its policies in a number of areas.

Instead of engaging in pre-budgetary window dressing, the Liberal government would do well to examine and memorize the annual horror stories in the Auditor General's reports and rectify these situations immediately.

As you know, in Quebec and Canada, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power, we are facing a financial situation that is very bleak. I think we should realize this when we look at Canada's finances.

Especially in a federation or a confederation, and I think some time my hon. friends opposite, my Canadian friends, will have to explain the difference between these two terms, because some Liberals have been asking Bloc members about the difference between separation and sovereignty for Quebec. I think they ought to realize that what Quebec wants is sovereignty and decide what the terms federation and Confederation mean, because it is rather confusing. Canadians, and especially Quebecers, tend to confuse these terms.

In any case, I was saying that the government should act on the recommendations of the Auditor General if it really wants to put its financial house in order. However, that may be wishful thinking. There are aspects to this nice, shiny, federal system on the verge of bankruptcy which are faintly ridiculous, and I mean ridiculous, and I will explain why.

Goodies have to be handed out to support our precious and costly Canadian unity. I found one of these ridiculous aspects when I looked at the Auditor General's reports for the past few years. My example only concerns the portfolio for which I was appointed official critic, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

In Canada, national generosity as an approach to RCMP expenditures is costing the federal Treasury millions of dollars. First of all, the hon. member should realize that through contractual arrangements, the RCMP provides police services in eight provinces, the two territories and 191 municipalities, except for Quebec and Ontario which do not benefit directly from all this largesse.

This means that in addition to its federal police function, the RCMP provides provincial policing for about 40 per cent of the Canadian population and municipal policing for about 20 per cent of the same population. For some Canadians, the RCMP is the only police they know. Theoretically there is nothing wrong with this, but it costs millions, and if this generous system, introduced by the Liberals and the Conservatives, contributes to the deficit, there is a problem.

Upon reading the Auditor General's report for 1992, we soon realize there is a problem with this system. The RCMP provides provincial and municipal policing at below cost as calculated by the Auditor General in his 1992 report.

Ever since the government entered into contract policing, it has been charging provinces and municipalities for RCMP services. However, as the Auditor General pointed out in his report: "The federal government has never attempted to recover the full cost of providing these services". We read this on page 532.

The federal government does not compute the real cost of these services but negotiates a cost base with the provinces. Actually, the provinces and municipalities pay only a percentage of the negotiated cost base. Usually, it is between 70 and 90 per cent of the real cost. The government uses the theoretical cost base negotiated by the parties to charge the provinces and the municipalities that benefit under the system.

The federal government is losing a lot of money with this approach. The contract signed in April 1992 is a 20-year agreement, and there is a faintly ridiculous aspect to this contract as well, because it can only be reviewed every five years and the adjustments require unanimous agreement by the parties.

The new cost base works out to about $800 million annually, while the real cost, according to the Auditor General, is between $900 million and $950 million. The real cost, which represents a difference of $100 million to $150 million was calculated by the Auditor General according to the guidelines outlined in the Treasury Board's guide to the costing of outputs.

Still according to the Auditor General, it appears that the federal government, in this case the Department of the Solicitor General, does not include some major cost items such as departmental administration at headquarters, EDP services, office rental and certain employee benefits paid by the federal government. The list is much longer on page 533 of the Auditor General's report, which I think the government would do well to read in preparation for its upcoming budget.

As I said before, for the duration of the 20 year contract, the agreement, which is reviewed every five years, cannot be adjusted without the mutual consent of the federal government and the provinces. Generally speaking, the provinces agree to pay only those new expenses they believe are appropriate.

The federal government receives only $600 million or so annually for the provision by the RCMP of provincial and municipal polices services which cost between $900 and $950 million per year. So, the balance sheet looks like this: real cost of services: $900 to $950 million; revenues: $600 million; the federal government's share: between $300 and $350 million. Quebec' share-and I think it is important for my hon. friends opposite to hear it-is 24 per cent of the total, or between $70 and $90 million. That is what Quebec pays for services which it does not get, or worse still, for a service that it already pays the provincial government and the municipalities to provide. This is one blatant example of how federalism is costly to Quebec.

The federal shortfall, as I mentioned earlier, totals $300 million annually. If we calculate on a twenty-year basis, because the agreement covers a span of twenty years, the shortfall amounts to roughly $6 billion. In other words, Quebec taxpayers subsidize provincial and municipal police services in the other provinces, excluding Ontario of course, as I said earlier, to the tune of between $70 and $90 million per year, or between $1.4 and $1.8 billion over the term of the agreement. More than 40 per cent of Canadians receive police services that are subsidized by Quebec and Ontario residents. Some provinces benefit more than others. For instance, a large portion of British Columbia has no police force other than the national force which provides service at both the municipal and provincial levels.

In conclusion, what the Official Opposition is calling for is a committee which would examine this area and determine if overlap exists and whether a province is paying for a service it is not receiving. I think the government, if it is truly realistic and honest about what it wants to do, should go along with the Official Opposition's proposal to review, item by item, the cost of national police services. And this is only one area, one under the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada. If we were to look at all departments, we would see how much money the provinces, and Quebec in particular, pay out for services they do not receive.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the opposition for addressing the matter of whether or not we should set up a separate committee for finances.

I remind the hon. member that he said he was trying to eliminate duplication. The very nature of what he is proposing actually is duplication.

There is no question that the Auditor General's report is a significant document. I hope every department will use it as a tool to try to get rid of those deficiencies as alluded to by the hon. member.

Canada is a Confederation, not a unitary state. As the member put it Canada is not a country of states that do not care for one another. Those provinces that are doing quite well assist the other provinces through equalization payments and so on. This is unique. We enjoy a good status in the world. We are respected. We enjoy a high standard of living. Our kind of democracy and our kind of government are examples for many countries.

To separate or to tear the country apart is the subliminal message coming from the members of the opposition. It is probably not a very good way. I can say that quite firmly coming from a country where independence was achieved. After independence our standard of living went down and was not as good as we thought it would be. We ended up with a great deal of enemies. We thought they were not our enemies but economically they were bigger and forced more kinds of restraints on us.

To get back to the question we are debating today, we do need to look very seriously at government records and the way it spends its money, but the mechanism is already there. We have government and opposition members to do this. That is the mechanism we should be using in order to achieve those goals.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his four questions or observations. I will start with the first one.

What the Official Opposition is asking for is a committee which would look at where taxpayers' money goes. Quebec pays billions of dollars every year, the pretext being that it is truly getting value for its money. We have heard that tune many times from the members opposite.

I gave one very specific example of an area where Quebec pays without getting value for its money. We could look at other cases as well. If the hon. member is truly sincere about what he wants to do, he should agree to our proposal and we will get the final word. We want to know who pays and how much, where the money goes and why.

Second, the ideal thing would be for each department to examine the Auditor General's report and make it bedtime reading. Then, every night, the horror stories uncovered by the Auditor General would be recalled and efforts would be made to correct them. Of course, this is just wishful thinking. Every year, the same thing happens. If we did not talk about the Auditor General's report, no one would. The government wants it to be swept under the rug.

Third, I do not think that Canada should be held up as an example for other countries to follow, considering that in just the one small area that I mentioned, namely the national police

force, the annual deficit is between $300 and $350 million. There is not a manager in the world who would be around long if he ran his business or his country in this manner.

Fourth, I do not think we should compare Canada to some of the other countries that we do. We have a clearly established democracy and clearly established social values, in Quebec as well as in Canada. We are a people, at least in so far as Quebec is concerned, who are looking not just for our fair share, but looking to become masters in our own home. Quebec has been repeating the same thing for years. Eventually, English Canada will get the message and the comparisons which you were making earlier will stop.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question and comment period is over.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe-National Defence; the hon. member for Laval-Est-Human Rights; the hon. member for Waterloo-Privatization; the hon. member for Frontenac-Environment; the hon. member for Roberval-Cigarette smuggling.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Here we are just days before the new Liberal government produces its first budget. Nothing further having come out of the proposed review of federal government expenditure, the Official Opposition has decided to make it the subject of this allotted day.

The Liberal Party said in the red book, and let me quote from their dear book: ". . .cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". I hope they remember what is written in the red book.

Did the Liberal Party think that the people would not demand transparency in government expenditure in order to regain confidence? Apparently not. The same red book states: ". . .give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees" and if I read correctly "these committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures". That is what we are debating today.

Once in office, how can the Liberal Party honour this promise made in the red book other than by supporting the motion put forward by the Official Opposition? This is the first action the Liberal government could take to regain the confidence of the people.

Parliamentarians are accountable to the people, not obscure bureaucrats who develop behind closed doors measures that will apply to everybody.

We ask that the Liberal Party grasp the tools to honour their own promises, not ours but their own, and that parliamentarians devote themselves again to their primary function, which is to represent the interests of their constituents.

In tabling his report, the Auditor General tells us implicitly that parliamentary action is needed to solve the federal government's problems. In making an annual list of horrors in the federal government, the Auditor General is telling Canadians that the federal government cannot manage its affairs responsibly as long as parliamentarians do not throw open the doors of departments and turn on the lights in the offices where decision-makers meet. The hope for budget discipline is pretty slim.

In his 1990 report, the Auditor General points out the complexity of federal-provincial relations in environmental matters. The constitution acts of 1867 and 1982 are inoperative. This is one of the most difficult sectors for dividing responsibilities among the various stakeholders.

This constitutional confusion encourages duplication such as parallel assessments, similar inspections by each level of government, and endless disputes on issues vital to our societies' development. We must accept the fact that Canadian federalism is unable to meet tomorrow's challenges.

We now know that this federalism is impossible to reform, as we tried to do with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. These accords showed Quebecers that they could not, within this framework, hope to participate in building a society meeting their expectations. The environment is a perfect example of a major problem caught in jurisdictional battles that can only be resolved by a sweeping reform of our institutions, namely Quebec's sovereignty.

If environmental mismanagement was only a problem at the federal-provincial relations level, we could expect Quebec's sovereignty to be a done deal, so let us gather up our belongings and head back home to get organized.

But the federal government's involvement is so confusing that it is hard to find the department accountable to the public. This confusion is in no one's interest and the Official Opposition must act to eliminate it.

The Auditor General said that these "divisions in responsibility for environmental matters is a patchwork that makes it almost impossible to assign public accountability for safeguarding Canada's environment". In 1990, 24 federal departments had responsibilities under over 50 pieces of legislation impacting on the environment. The environment department alone had responsibilities under 36 pieces of legislation.

The St. Lawrence action plan is one example of the interdepartmental co-ordination problem at the federal level alone and not at the federal-provincial level. While Quebec and the federal government agreed on the St. Lawrence action plan, some federal departments got all tangled up in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Responsibility for financing and implementation was shared by three federal departments, namely Environment Canada, Industry, Science and Technology, and Fisheries and Oceans, with total contributions of $84 million, $20 million and $6 million respectively.

The St. Lawrence action plan called for these departments to co-ordinate their activities to meet common objectives, a difficult undertaking in the federal government. The problem was that the first two departments had different objectives.

The environment department focussed on the demonstration and application of technologies meeting the immediate needs of the 50 industries involved in the action plan, while the industry department focussed on the development and application of new and improved technologies that can be marketed nationally and internationally and be eventually applicable to industries along the St. Lawrence.

The Auditor General explained that "this difference in departmental objectives and program funding mechanisms led to co-ordination problems. Although an agreement was concluded between the two departments to provide for a management structure to co-ordinate their respective programs, it proved to be ineffective". I am talking about two federal departments and not about federal-provincial agreements.

We know that it is difficult to combine the objectives of the governments of Quebec and of Canada, we live with that, but when the confusion is within the federal government itself, the situation is downright unacceptable.

If only the federal government were satisfied to solve problems just on its turf, among its departments. But no, it feels the need to intervene and create problems on all sorts of issues with as much right as Quebec.

Environment Canada acts in almost all the 18 fields in which the Quebec Department of the Environment operates. Thus, two levels of government are acting towards the same goal of limiting industrial pollution. Because of this duplication, Quebec and Ottawa each have regulations on industrial waste from pulp and paper mills.

Pulp and paper mills are thus subject to two sets of regulations. For each company, the expenses incurred to apply these regulations are about $100,000 a year.

I conclude by telling you that the Official Opposition has given its word to Quebecers that it would defend their interests in Ottawa until they decide on the question of sovereignty for Quebec.

Our proposal is meant to get the federal government to clean up its finances and its programs, if necessary. I repeat: its finances and its programs.

The interests of Quebecers, as well as those of Canadians, are badly served by the way the apparatus of government now operates, and a thorough study is therefore necessary.

The federal government should respect its commitments to the people as written in its famous red book, it should seize the opportunity which we in the Official Opposition are giving them and it should let parliamentarians study government operations thoroughly, and in that way we can perhaps act in the best interest of the people of Quebec and Canada and get our respective societies back on a less chaotic road.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I disagree with the thrust of the opposition motion or with much of the member's intervention.

I cannot help but note that the substance of the motion refers to a desire for a process that would review the public accounts with reference to overlap and duplication between federal and provincial governments.

I wonder if the member could advise the House whether he or his colleagues intend to propose such a motion as this to the public accounts committee which will be chaired, as I understand it, by a member of the Official Opposition. This committee, which is charged with the very subject matter that is the substance of this motion, is free to deliberate in an open and transparent process, as all of the committees of the House do. They have the power to subpoena, if not subpoena to call for attendance and production of papers and persons and they can report to the House whenever they wish.

The entire ambit of the motion can be put to and pursued by the public accounts committee if the members of that committee so wish and I wonder if the hon. member's party is prepared to proceed in that direction.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to thank the member, who does not disapprove of our motion, if I understood the interpreters correctly. If he does not disapprove, then I think he approves. I thank him.

I also think that he must make a distinction between the public accounts committee and a special committee studying all federal spending and overlap.

In talking about the public accounts committee, we must look at what it is and what it does. The committee's mandate is not to study all the spending of all departments, nor all programs or the overlap between federal and provincial programs. We want to keep the role of the public accounts committee as it is. Since this morning, we have heard that answer or that statement from the other side of the House. Before thinking of broadening the public accounts committee, they should have looked at what it is and what it does. They would have clearly seen that it is not on the public accounts committee that we have to examine federal government spending item by item or to consider overlapping programs. Let us keep the public accounts committee as it is and set up a special committee.

I will again quote the red book or remind hon. members opposite that they promised it in their red book and we are giving them a chance to keep their promise. Instead of being recalcitrant to our requests, they should thank us. That is what I wanted to say.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

First of all I appreciate the fact that the hon. member read the red book. I do not know why he says that he is giving us the opportunity to defend the book. He needs the opportunity to defend his presence in this room.

I am puzzled and hurt when the issue is addressed and they say Quebec and Canada. One has to be straightforward as a Canadian. Either one is for Quebec or one is for Canada. One is most welcome to be in Canada and we want you to be in Canada-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt. Please put your remarks through the Chair. That diffuses things a little bit.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has to be fair and tell us whether he is for the separation of Quebec. Is he for sovereignty? Or is he for independence?

I have been here for the last three months. I am confused where the opposition stands on this issue. Those members keep mentioning the same issue over and over again.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have only two minutes left. I could meet with the member to explain the position of Quebec sovereigntists to him; unfortunately, unless and until Quebec is a sovereign country, we are part of Canada. Again, unfortunately, I am disappointed to see a Canadian sitting in Parliament who does not know Quebec's position. Personally I am very disappointed and sorry too about the position of my colleague on the other side of the House.

I would also have liked him to speak on the subject of today's debate, namely an item-by-item committee. We are also showing our good will, in that as long as we are in this House, we would like it to work as well as possible. I invite him to discuss it with me after, because in two minutes, I cannot explain Quebec's position to him, but I will be pleased to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment will speak for 20 minutes. Am I right?